SULTANA BEGUM Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions, reported to be time barred by 96 days, are accompanied by applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. The delay in preferring the review petitions is condoned.

(2.) These review petitions have been filed seeking review of the order dated 25.02.2020 passed by this Court whereby the writ petitions preferred by the review petitioner against the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were dismissed, have been dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring the agreements in question i.e., dated 20.01.1982 and 16.12.1981 (Annexures 2 and 3 respectively along with writ petitions), submitted that the recitals therein disclose the same to be in the nature of family settlement which neither required registration nor payment of stamp duty. He further submitted that even if the same are assumed to be agreements, in view of provisions of Article 5(c) of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of1952'), the stamp duty payable at the relevant time was Rs.2/- only; whereas, the documents were affixed with stamp duty of Rs.5/- and thus were sufficiently stamped. He submitted that in view of explanation to Article 23 of schedule 2 having been added by way of amendment which came into effect from 18.09.2019, the documents were not required to be compulsorily registrable with levy of stamp duty treating the same to be conveyance. He, therefore, prayed that the review petitions be allowed.